Two sides of one medal: Arable weed vegetation of Europe in phytosociological data compared to agronomical weed surveys

2022 | journal article. A publication with affiliation to the University of Göttingen.

Jump to: Cite & Linked | Documents & Media | Details | Version history

Cite this publication

​Two sides of one medal: Arable weed vegetation of Europe in phytosociological data compared to agronomical weed surveys​
Bürger, J.; Küzmič, F.; Šilc, U.; Jansen, F.; Bergmeier, E.; Chytrý, M. & Cirujeda, A. et al.​ (2022) 
Applied Vegetation Science25(1).​ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12460 

Documents & Media

AVSC_AVSC12460.pdf2.25 MBUnknown

License

Details

Authors
Bürger, Jana; Küzmič, Filip; Šilc, Urban; Jansen, Florian; Bergmeier, Erwin; Chytrý, Milan; Cirujeda, Alicia; Fogliatto, Silvia; Fried, Guillaume; Dostatny, Denise F.; Gerowitt, Bärbel; Glemnitz, Michael; González‐Andújar, José L.; Hernández Plaza, Eva; Izquierdo, Jordi; Kolářová, Michaela; Lososová, Zdeňka; Metcalfe, Helen; Ņečajeva, Jevgenija; Petit, Sandrine; Pinke, Gyula; Rašomavičius, Valerijus; von Redwitz, Christoph; Schumacher, Matthias; Ulber, Lena; Vidotto, Francesco
Editors
Jiménez‐Alfaro, Borja
Abstract
Abstract Questions Two scientific disciplines, vegetation science and weed science, study arable weed vegetation, which has seen a strong diversity decrease in Europe over the last decades. We compared two collections of plot‐based vegetation records originating from these two disciplines. The aim was to check the suitability of the collections for joint analysis and for addressing research questions from the opposing domains. We asked: are these collections complementary? If so, how can they be used for joint analysis? Location Europe. Methods We compared 13 311 phytosociological relevés and 13 328 records from weed science, concerning both data collection properties and the recorded species richness. To deal with bias in the data, we also analysed different subsets (i.e., crops, geographical regions, organic vs conventional fields, center vs edge plots). Results Records from vegetation science have an average species number of 19.0 ± 10.4. Metadata on survey methodology or agronomic practices are rare in this collection. Records from weed science have an average species number of 8.5 ± 6.4. They are accompanied by extensive methodological information. Vegetation science records and the weed science records taken at field edges or from organic fields have similar species numbers. The collections cover different parts of Europe but the results are consistent in six geographical subsets and the overall data set. The difference in species numbers may be caused by differences in methodology between the disciplines, i.e., plot positioning within fields, plot sizes, or survey timing. Conclusion This comparison of arable weed data that were originally sampled with a different purpose represents a new effort in connecting research between vegetation scientists and weed scientists. Both collections show different aspects of weed vegetation, which means the joint use of the data is valuable as it can contribute to a more complete picture of weed species diversity in European arable landscapes.
Vegetation of arable weeds is sampled by two rarely interacting scientific communities: phytosociologists and weed scientists from an agronomical background. We compare two data collections. Agronomical weed surveys were taken mainly in field centres and have a lower species richness than phytosociological data, taken presumably mostly in field edges. Combined use is proposed for a more accurate picture of weed vegetation. image
Issue Date
2022
Journal
Applied Vegetation Science 
ISSN
1402-2001
eISSN
1654-109X
Language
English
Sponsor
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001659
Grantová Agentura České Republiky http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001824
Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004329

Reference

Citations


Social Media